can guided missile cruiser defend themselves against battleship

Can these nuclear missile cruisers defend against battleship attack

  • Yes, they can, they can sink battleship as well

    Votes: 6 54.5%
  • Yes they can, but they can't deal any damage to battleship

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • No they can't intercept battleship cannon batteries but they can sink battleship

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • No, they can't do anything

    Votes: 2 18.2%

  • Total voters
    11

Vanessa1402

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
10 April 2021
Messages
133
Reaction score
55
Can these nuclear missile cruisers such as Virginia class defend against attack done by battleship such as Iowa or Yamato?.
Yamato battleship:
Armament

Virginia nuclear missile cruiser:
Armament
 
Last edited:
A battleship can't do anything to a CG outside the range of its own guns, so yes a CG can defend themself if their missiles work.
 
Can these nuclear missile cruisers such as Virginia class defend against attack done by battleship such as Iowa or Yamato?.
Yamato battleship:

Well, if battleship is further than 50 km, than the only question is "would "Virginia" have enough missiles to kill, or just to cripple her?" Because "Harpoons" aren't actually the armor-penetrating weapon. "Tomahawks", assuming they are RGM-109B TASM anti-ship models, would likely be more efficient (if programmed to strike the deck from pop-up maneuver), but there are only eight of them.

If the battleship is within the gunnery range... Well, then the main "Virginia" weapon would be her SAM's. The SM-2MR missiles are fast-reaction weapon, and very precise. "Virginia" could lob out eight of them per minute, which should be enough to cause massive destruction in "Yamato" superstructure, disable her fire controls, and reduce the efficiency of battleship's gunfire.

P.S. Does "Virginia"-class cruisers have smoke screen equipment? If they do, then the situation is one-sided even on short distance; "Virginia" could cover herself in smoke, and use ECM's to block the "Yamato" quite inefficient radars, so she would not even know where to shoot.
 
A battleship can't do anything to a CG outside the range of its own guns, so yes a CG can defend themself if their missiles work.
That is my impression at start, but after looking closer, I think the CG can't defend itself at all.
Yamato is equipped with 9 cannon with 460 mm caliber that can shot as far as 42 km and 12 cannon with 155 mm caliber that can shot as far as 27 km. So the battleship can shot 21 shell at a time
Virginia class has 2 twin rack launcher and 2 illuminator, so it can launch 4 missiles on the air at a time and guided them to attack 2 targets at once.
460 mm shell is around 1.5 tons of solid steel, RIM-66 use 52 kg continous rod warhead so I don't think it can even deflect 460 mm shell, much less destroy it.
 
Last edited:
Yamato's Captain going to be disturbed being hit by missiles from a ship he doesn't even know is there and those 454kg TASM warheads are going to do some serious damage. If he doesn't make a run for it and actually does find Virginia and closes within visual range, a couple of ASROCs with 10kt W44 nuclear warheads will either scare them off or if they land close enough provide some keel snapping fun.
 
Last edited:
Pretty sure the "Virgina" would be able to engage and disengage at will, sniping to reduce the effectiveness of defence and crippling any Battleship not equipped with up to date weaponry and sensors. Interesting discussion.
 
Yamato's Captain going to be disturbed being hit by missiles from a ship he doesn't even know is there and those 454kg TASM warheads are going to do some serious damage.
I don't think 454 kg HE warhead of TASM can do much to a Yamato or Iowa. Battleship cannon can use HE round which weight 900-1300 kg but HE rounds are very ineffective in anti ship and they needed solid steel AP round to damage and sink each other
E813C90A-4295-4D89-A240-E2CF7BBC9073.png
This is even more true for Yamato because of the thick steel armor layer
Armor
  • 650 mm (26 in) on face of main turrets[5]
  • 410 mm (16 in) side armor (400 mm (16 in) planned on Shinano and No. 111),[5] inclined 20 degrees
  • 200 mm (8 in) armored deck (75%)
  • 230 mm (9 in) armored deck
If he doesn't make a run for it and actually does find Virginia and closes within visual range, a couple of ASROCs with 10kt W44 nuclear warheads will either scare them off or if they land close enough provide some keel snapping fun.
ASROC range is 6 km, that put Virginia well within the effective range of battleship cannon
 
Last edited:
I don't think 454 kg HE warhead of TASM can do much to a Yamato or Iowa. Battleship cannon can use HE round which weight 900-1300 kg but HE rounds are very ineffective in anti ship and they needed solid steel AP round to damage and sink each other
Its roughly an equivalent of half-ton HE bomb hitting the ship. More than enough to seriously damage superstructure and unarmored parts.

P.S. If you want the work done, just took the Soviet cruiser with their supersonic anti-ship missiles with massive shaped-charge wahreads. P-500 Bazalt or P-700 Granit would made a short work out of "Yamato", punching through her decks right into machinery, boilers and magazines.
 
I don't think 454 kg HE warhead of TASM can do much to a Yamato or Iowa. Battleship cannon can use HE round which weight 900-1300 kg but HE rounds are very ineffective in anti ship and they needed solid steel AP round to damage and sink each other
The weight of a battleship gun projectile is immaterial in this case. A complete APC Type 91 fired from Yamato's Type 94 guns weighs 1,460kg, yet only 33.85kg of that is explosive filling - the burster charge. Common Type 0 HE weighed 1,360kg and had 61.7kg of explosive filling.
AP projectiles work by sheer brute force by kinetic energy (hitting at 1,880km/h at 20km) with a small burster to make them fragment after penetrating through armour (the fuse is in the base). Without hitting an armoured bulkhead its possible for such a shell to pass right through a ship without exploding, leaving holes and secondary shrapnel but not in itself fatal to a ship unless it hits something vital (boilers, engineering spaces).

If we look at the Battle of Samar, Yamato hit the escort carrier USS Gambier Bay and the destroyer USS Johnston causing damage to engineering spaces and engines and causing numerous fires but not actually sinking either ship by herself (indeed most of Jonhson's armament and even her radar remained operative). Just shooting holes through a thinly skinned vessel is not going to make her sink.
All the Japanese battleships switched from AP to HE because the AP rounds were simply ineffective against the light ships they were engaging. The Japanese battleships got within 16km of the carriers but the result was disappointing (flatter trajectories) and by then the were engaging with their secondary guns anyway.

TASM trades impact velocity (half that of the shell) but has a much larger explosive force, I'm presuming TASM had a shaped warhead which would increase its effectiveness. Also, its a guided missile and very accurate, each one is likely to find its target.
Soviet supersonic SSMs restore the velocity balance in their favour, hitting harder than most battleships shells ever could and with more explosive content too.

In this scenario if an APC Type 91 hits a relatively unimportant part of the hull of Virginia there is a chance it would pass right through or partially explode. Damage would be done, certainly shock damage on electrical equipment would be a problem. If the shell hit the reactor or engineering spaces, it would certainly pierce that containment/armour and explode within the compartment and the ship would be in a dire situation pretty quickly. In her defence, Virginia is capable of 30+kts so is a fast ship and would be a fairly rapidly moving target, especially for Yamato reliant on visual rangefinding. For me, eight hits from TASM would likely cripple Yamato or seriously reduce her fighting potential and her crew's morale to fight, especially as Virginia could be 100+ miles away. Yamato has to be able to find Virginia to sink her and without modern radar good luck doing that (unless we're bringing spotter planes into this and even then I don't want to be a Aichi E13A pilot going up against an SM-2...).
 
Last edited:
I don't think 454 kg HE warhead of TASM can do much to a Yamato or Iowa. Battleship cannon can use HE round which weight 900-1300 kg but HE rounds are very ineffective in anti ship and they needed solid steel AP round to damage and sink each other
The weight of a battleship gun projectile is immaterial in this case. A complete APC Type 91 fired from Yamato's Type 94 guns weighs 1,460kg, yet only 33.85kg of that is explosive filling - the burster charge. Common Type 0 HE weighed 1,360kg and had 61.7kg of explosive filling.
AP projectiles work by sheer brute force by kinetic energy (hitting at 1,880km/h at 20km) with a small burster to make them fragment after penetrating through armour (the fuse is in the base). Without hitting an armoured bulkhead its possible for such a shell to pass right through a ship without exploding, leaving holes and secondary shrapnel but not in itself fatal to a ship unless it hits something vital (boilers, engineering spaces).

If we look at the Battle of Samar, Yamato hit the escort carrier USS Gambier Bay and the destroyer USS Johnston causing damage to engineering spaces and engines and causing numerous fires but not actually sinking either ship by herself (indeed most of Jonhson's armament and even her radar remained operative). Just shooting holes through a thinly skinned vessel is not going to make her sink.
All the Japanese battleships switched from AP to HE because the AP rounds were simply ineffective against the light ships they were engaging. The Japanese battleships got within 16km of the carriers but the result was disappointing (flatter trajectories) and by then the were engaging with their secondary guns anyway.

TASM trades impact velocity (half that of the shell) but has a much larger explosive force, I'm presuming TASM had a shaped warhead which would increase its effectiveness. Also, its a guided missile and very accurate, each one is likely to find its target.
Soviet supersonic SSMs restore the velocity balance in their favour, hitting harder than most battleships shells ever could and with more explosive content too.

In this scenario if an APC Type 91 hits a relatively unimportant part of the hull of Virginia there is a chance it would pass right through or partially explode. Damage would be done, certainly shock damage on electrical equipment would be a problem. If the shell hit the reactor or engineering spaces, it would certainly pierce that containment/armour and explode within the compartment and the ship would be in a dire situation pretty quickly. In her defence, Virginia is capable of 30+kts so is a fast ship and would be a fairly rapidly moving target, especially for Yamato reliant on visual rangefinding. For me, eight hits from TASM would likely cripple Yamato or seriously reduce her fighting potential and her crew's morale to fight, especially as Virginia could be 100+ miles away. Yamato has to be able to find Virginia to sink her and without modern radar good luck doing that (unless we're bringing spotter planes into this and even then I don't want to be a Aichi E13A pilot going up against an SM-2...).
I understand that most of the cannon shell mass is steel rather than high explosive filler, but it is also true for TASM warhead. TASM warhead is Bullpup AGM-12C warhead, and AGM-12c warhead delivered from AN-M59 SAP bomb with 142 kg of HE and the rest is steel.
Common sense suggest that, if thin wall shell with loads of high explosive can do the job against battleship then they won't rely on AP shell with thick steel wall. Because thin wall HE shell must be much cheaper, lighter and easier to manufacturing
 
Last edited:
I don't think 454 kg HE warhead of TASM can do much to a Yamato or Iowa. Battleship cannon can use HE round which weight 900-1300 kg but HE rounds are very ineffective in anti ship and they needed solid steel AP round to damage and sink each other
Its roughly an equivalent of half-ton HE bomb hitting the ship. More than enough to seriously damage superstructure and unarmored parts.

P.S. If you want the work done, just took the Soviet cruiser with their supersonic anti-ship missiles with massive shaped-charge wahreads. P-500 Bazalt or P-700 Granit would made a short work out of "Yamato", punching through her decks right into machinery, boilers and magazines
As I recall it, battleship armor are all or nothing, the unimportant parts are not armored, the important part like the citadel, turret are alway armored
P/S: I know there are weapons that can get rid of any battleship very quickly, but there is no fun in that. I'm interested in how the more modern nuclear missile cruiser can defend themselves against their grand father
 
As I recall it, battleship armor are all or nothing, the unimportant parts are not armored, the important part like the citadel, turret are alway armored
Problem is, that unarmored parts aren't exactly "unimportant". They are not vital - which means that hit here would not immediately disable the battleship. But enough hits into bow, and battleship would turn into half-flooded semi-submarine, barely able to stay on water.
 
P/S: I know there are weapons that can get rid of any battleship very quickly, but there is no fun in that. I'm interested in how the more modern nuclear missile cruiser can defend themselves against their grand father
Essentially any Soviet-era anti-ship missile could get rid of any battleship very quickly. Even modest P-15 Termit with its 50 km range carried heavy HE/shaped charge warhead, capable of punching through any deck or turret roof armor in existence.
 
Prior to the development of Harpoon to cope with growing numbers of Soviet surface ships the only long range weapon that Long Beach and co had was to use Talos and Terrier SAMs in the surface role.
Normally these ships were with a US carrier and its aircraft were their strike weapons.
 
...which would basically end the contact.
 
P/S: I know there are weapons that can get rid of any battleship very quickly, but there is no fun in that. I'm interested in how the more modern nuclear missile cruiser can defend themselves against their grand father
Essentially any Soviet-era anti-ship missile could get rid of any battleship very quickly. Even modest P-15 Termit with its 50 km range carried heavy HE/shaped charge warhead, capable of punching through any deck or turret roof armor in existence.
Indeed, but that is too obvious.
I'm more interested in the ability of US missile cruiser such as Virginia if it face a battleship like Iowa or Yamato
 
The radars on the Virginia are good enough they could probably dodge 16" shells all day long. Jam the radars on the BB and shoot it to your hearts content. By the time they even know there's a Virgina out there they would have been smacked by 8 Tomahawks and 8 Harpoons and 60+ SM-2s. (Don't know if they'd even notice the Harpoons.)
 
As I recall it, battleship armor are all or nothing, the unimportant parts are not armored, the important part like the citadel, turret are alway armored
Problem is, that unarmored parts aren't exactly "unimportant". They are not vital - which means that hit here would not immediately disable the battleship. But enough hits into bow, and battleship would turn into half-flooded semi-submarine, barely able to stay on water.
To be fair though, Yamato and her sister are the definition of durable, taking 35 torpedos and 19 bombs before going down
yamato.jpg.3857500ff2385cd073d9a9927c88a13c.jpg
 
To be fair though, Yamato and her sister are the definition of durable, taking 35 torpedos and 19 bombs before going down

But they were hopelessly crippled long before destroyed. "Yamato" was essentially disabled after first eight torpedo and fifteen bomb hits. Her fire control was knocked out, her speed down to ten knots, and she listed so heavily, that only extensive counter-flooding saved her from capsizing.
 
The radars on the Virginia are good enough they could probably dodge 16" shells all day long. Jam the radars on the BB and shoot it to your hearts content. By the time they even know there's a Virgina out there they would have been smacked by 8 Tomahawks and 8 Harpoons and 60+ SM-2s. (Don't know if they'd even notice the Harpoons.)

This depend. If Harpoons are set on pop-up attack, they would surely hit the superstructure and unarmored ends hard. If not... citadel would obviously survive the hits, but unarmored ends would not take it lightly. If I recall correctly (I'm not exactly sure), 221-kg DESTEX warhead may be compared in destructive power with 454-kg WW2 HE bomb.
 
To be fair though, Yamato and her sister are the definition of durable, taking 35 torpedos and 19 bombs before going down

But they were hopelessly crippled long before destroyed. "Yamato" was essentially disabled after first eight torpedo and fifteen bomb hits. Her fire control was knocked out, her speed down to ten knots, and she listed so heavily, that only extensive counter-flooding saved her from capsizing.
That is not a small number by any mean. I will run this in CMO to see how it go
 
The results are in:
I can't find Yamato in my CMO, so I use Iowa as the next best thing
CGN-38 Virginia start their attack first with RIM-66D , Harpoon and TASM
Attack by RIm-66 (2).PNG

After a while BB-61 Iowa get all of its sensors destroyed but keep pressing forward
Sensor destroyed.PNG

1 or 2 cannon shell struck CGN-38 Virginia and BB-61 Iowa emerged the victor even though heavily damaged.
Iowa won.PNG
 
Certainly an interesting engagement @Ronny
Though IRL I'd imagine the CGN would take advantage of its near-unlimited flank speed and keep itself out of the gun range.
 
The results are in:
I can't find Yamato in my CMO, so I use Iowa as the next best thing
CGN-38 Virginia start their attack first with RIM-66D , Harpoon and TASM
View attachment 661556

After a while BB-61 Iowa get all of its sensors destroyed but keep pressing forward
View attachment 661557

1 or 2 cannon shell struck CGN-38 Virginia and BB-61 Iowa emerged the victor even though heavily damaged.
View attachment 661558
Great, though Yamato has thicker armor so perhaps it will survive better than Iowa
 
Not wishing to water down this fun thread, just add a different angle.
A Royal Navy surface action group from 1977 faces a US New Jersey battleship in a NATO exercise (only on the computers of course at Navwar) designed to see if the ship should be recommissioned to counter a rumoured Soviet battlecruiser.
The surface action group consists of
HMS Blake Helicopter cruiser with single 6" gun turret
HMS Norfolk Destroyer Leader with Seaslug 2 and 4 Exocet plus 4.5" gun turret.
HMS Bristol trials destroyer with Seadart and Ikara
HMS Cleopatra Frigate with 4 Exocet
Only helicopter missile available is 2 SS12 on Wasp helo on Cleopatra. Torpedos for Seaking (Blake) and Wessex (Norfolk) are ASW?
Doubt that the UK SAG without any airpower or a friendly SSN could inflict much damage on New Jersey or?
 
Not wishing to water down this fun thread, just add a different angle.
A Royal Navy surface action group from 1977 faces a US New Jersey battleship in a NATO exercise (only on the computers of course at Navwar) designed to see if the ship should be recommissioned to counter a rumoured Soviet battlecruiser.
The surface action group consists of
HMS Blake Helicopter cruiser with single 6" gun turret
HMS Norfolk Destroyer Leader with Seaslug 2 and 4 Exocet plus 4.5" gun turret.
HMS Bristol trials destroyer with Seadart and Ikara
HMS Cleopatra Frigate with 4 Exocet
Only helicopter missile available is 2 SS12 on Wasp helo on Cleopatra. Torpedos for Seaking (Blake) and Wessex (Norfolk) are ASW?
Doubt that the UK SAG without any airpower or a friendly SSN could inflict much damage on New Jersey or?
I will test it tonight
 
Doubt that the UK SAG without any airpower or a friendly SSN could inflict much damage on New Jersey or
Well, it depend on would New Jersey use her missiles, or not?
Dilandu Sorry I should have explained the 1977 date. It was just assuming a return to service as in 1968 off Vietnam rather than a fit with Toms, Harpoon etc.
 
Dilandu Sorry I should have explained the 1977 date. It was just assuming a return to service as in 1968 off Vietnam rather than a fit with Toms, Harpoon etc.
Ah, understood. I wasn't sure, which configuration was implied - the Vietnam era one, or planned refit.

Well, in that case things are not exactly bright for the battleship. She got hit with eight anti-ship missiles from beyond the horizon firstly. Not that they are very powerful, but still HE/shaped charge warheads would cause a lot of damage in superstructure and below the upper armored deck.

Then, as soon as mast tops of "New Jersey" would appear on horizon, she would start to get hit with Sea Dart missiles. Mach 3 projectiles, hitting decks from near-vertical dive, would clearly NOT be a good thing for battleship. I'm not sure about armor penetration, but superstructure, fire control, secondaries would be gone, and even main turrets might be jammed from impact shocks. After all, Sea Dart is as fast as "New Jersey" shell point-blank, and hit from above.

The return fire from battleship would most likely not be efficient, due to damage to fire control system, and radars jamming.

On close distance, both Sea Slug missiles and six-inch autoloading guns could be used against significantly damaged battleship. They would most likely not penetrate armor either, but numerous hits would cause extensive fragments damage and spreading fire. While "New Jersey" could strike back at close distance using her turrets optics, the probability of hit would not be great.

So... most likely outcome, is "Tiger" disabled or at least heavy damaged, and "New Jersey" turned into burning wreck.

P.S. I could not recall - do County-class have anti-ship torpedoes in their fixed torpedo tubes?
 
Well, considering that the only battleships to exist after about 1950 were in the USN, it's really unlikely that there would be any kind of an experimental verification for this scenario. Unless the CGN captain was either particularly stupid or following truly idiotic orders, the ships wouldn't get close enough for the battleship's guns to do anything, but the CGN had weapons that could, at a minimum, wreck the battleship's fire control and communications systems.

Then, the CGN's task force commander would sent an SSN in to get rid of the battleship.
 
Some fringe tactics to think about:

What about the smoke generating capability of formations? It it is maintained than the threat of optically targeted artillery can be minimized as radar guided artillery can finish the target. Smoke can also be applied to target as well.

The battle between helicopters and AA dis-abled battleships should also be interesting as many makeshift weapons can be used.
*there needs to be a video game mission involving fast roping to disable main turrets by explosive charges~~

Finally, in a world of ships without FCS against ships without armor penetration, there can only be one solution:
RAMMING SPEED!!!one111!11!

Have anyone analyzed the survivability of battleships with regard to deliberate ramming?
 
Some fringe tactics to think about:

What about the smoke generating capability of formations? It it is maintained than the threat of optically targeted artillery can be minimized as radar guided artillery can finish the target. Smoke can also be applied to target as well.

The battle between helicopters and AA dis-abled battleships should also be interesting as many makeshift weapons can be used.
*there needs to be a video game mission involving fast roping to disable main turrets by explosive charges~~

Finally, in a world of ships without FCS against ships without armor penetration, there can only be one solution:
RAMMING SPEED!!!one111!11!

Have anyone analyzed the survivability of battleships with regard to deliberate ramming?
I think ramming will work in favor of heavy armored ship
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom